Default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr. PC would not be applicable to offences committed under Section 132 of the Goods and Services Tax Act,2017.

Case Title: Paritosh Kumar Singh @ Diwakar Choudhary vs State of Chhattisgarh

Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh

Petition No.: WP(Cr) No. 469 of 2021

Category: Bail – Default Bail under Section 167(2) CrPC

Date of Judgment: 01 October 2021

Relevant Sections: Section 132(1)(b), (c), (i), 132(5) of CGST Act, 2017; Sections 167(2), 173, 190 CrPC

Issue: Bail – Entitlement to statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC in GST-related prosecution

Facts of the Case

• The petitioners were arrested on 25.01.2021 for alleged offences under Sections 132(1)(b) and (c) of CGST Act, involving fake ITC to the tune of ₹258 crores and fictitious turnover of ₹1400 crores. They were remanded to judicial custody the same day or by 28.01.2021 in the case of petitioners 3 and 4 (transit remand) [Para 2, 10].
• The investigation by DGGI revealed use of multiple fictitious firms and PANs to pass on fake ITC [Para 10].
• A complaint (not a charge sheet) was filed by a Senior Intelligence Officer on 25.03.2021, the 59th day of arrest [Para 3, 15].
• Petitioners applied for default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC on grounds that charge sheet was not filed within 60 days, which was denied by the CJM and revisional court [Para 5, 9].

Questions in Consideration

• Whether filing of a complaint (instead of charge sheet) by GST officers within 60 days suffices to deny default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC?
• Whether GST officers are “police officers” obligated to file final report under Section 173 CrPC?
• Whether the petitioners are entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC due to non-submission of a final police report within the statutory period?

(Para 1, 5, 6)

Observation of the Court

• GST officers are not police officers under CrPC, thus not obligated to submit charge-sheet under Section 173 CrPC [Para 21, 25].
• They can file complaints under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC, and such complaints suffice for cognizance by Magistrates [Para 22, 23].
• The complaint was filed within 60 days of arrest (on 59th day), so Section 167(2) default bail conditions are not attracted [Para 26].
• Cited Deepak Mahajan (1994), Badaku Joti Savant (1966), P.V. Ramana Reddy (2019) to hold that authorized GST officers can file complaint and are not required to submit charge-sheet [Para 22–25].
• Reaffirmed principle from M. Ravindran v. DRI, (2021) 2 SCC 485 that default bail is enforceable only if the statutory period lapses without complaint/charge-sheet. In this case, the statutory requirement was met [Para 18, 26].

Judgment of the Court

• Held that filing of complaint within 60 days satisfies the legal requirement under Section 167(2) CrPC.
• Dismissed the writ petition and upheld orders of CJM dated 12.05.2021 and Revisional Court dated 26.06.2021 rejecting default bail [Para 27].

Between Fine Lines

1. GST officers are not considered police officers; they file complaints, not charge sheets.
2. Filing a complaint within 60 days prevents grant of default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC.
3. A complaint under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC is valid for taking cognizance in GST offences.
4. Petitioners’ reliance on the absence of a police report was misplaced.
5. Default bail cannot be claimed when complaint is timely filed—even if not a charge sheet.

Summary of Referred Cases